Mauney v. Obama et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting 35 Motion to Dismiss; granting 36 Motion to Dismiss; denying 47 Motion for Sanctions; adopting 59 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 11/28/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-cv-215-RJC-DCK
FRED WOODROW MAUNEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRICKET/BOJANGLES COLISEUM,
CHARLOTTE REGIONAL VISITOR’S
AUTHORITY, EX-POLICE CHIEF
DARREL STEPHENS, OFFICER DOES
1 THRU 20, JOHN DOE SECURITY
OFFICER, PATRICK MCCRORY,
ANTHONY FOXX, JOHN LASSITER,
EDWIN PEACOCK, II, PATSY KINSEY,
JAMES E. MITCHELL, JR., WARREN
TURNER, MICHAEL, BARNES, NANCY
CARTER, ANDY DULIN, and
WARREN COOKSEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Charlotte Regional Visitors
Authority’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 35), Defendants Patrick McCrory, Anthony Foxx,
John Lassiter, Edwin Peacock, III, Patsy Kinsey, James E. Mitchell, Jr., Michael Barnes, Nancy
G. Carter, Andy Dulin, Warren Cooksey, Darrel Stephens and Warren Turner’s (collectively, the
“City Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 36), the City Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions as to Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 47), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 59), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss and deny the City Defendants’ Motion for Sactions. The parties have not
filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(2).

I.

BACKGROUND
Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of the factual and

procedural background of this case, and the Court thus adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a

magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that “a district court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1983). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are
challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Similarly, de novo review is not required by the statute “when a party
makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. “[I]n the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
III.

DISCUSSION
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall

make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has
been made. FED . R. CIV . 72(b). No objection to the M&R having been filed, the parties have
waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court
2

has conducted a full and careful review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having
done so, hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in
accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 59), is ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No.
35), is GRANTED;

3.

The City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 36), is GRANTED; and

4.

The City Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions as to Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 47), is
DENIED.

Signed: November 28, 2012

3